|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I just picked up a Canonet for around $11 at a flea market There's a dude on my local craigslist selling one, but he wants $200 for it 
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
DJExile posted:Yeah, I kinda realized that right as I said it I just developed my first ever roll of film (c-41 though) this past weekend. Unfortunately, the only exposed film I had came out of a Holga, so who knows how well I did or how well my scanner works. However, it was really easy and I hosed it up and the pictures still came out. I've got some chemicals in the mail to try B&W. Most of B&H's developers are "pick up in store only", I assume there are some rules about mailing chemicals, so I couldn't get r09 which I've seen recommended and they don't appear to have Rodinal so I just guessed and bought Ilford Ilfosol S. We'll see how that goes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2011 22:03
|
|
|
After diluting the B&W developer and fixer how long can I realistically store it? Will I need to dilute a new bottle every time I want to develop film?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
I developed my first roll of black and white film and have two big splotches on the film like: Is this what it looks like when the photographer is a moron and accidentally pops open the back while film is in it (my hand was on the door so it didn't actually open up, but I guess light could have gotten in) or did I screw up the development? The rest of the roll looks pretty good, waiting for it to dry before I scan it though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:To me it looks like your film stuck to itself in the tub and the developer didn't uniformly coat the surface of that one area. That's what I was thinking, but after comparing the size of the splotch with the camera's "film area" (not sure what to call it) I'm pretty sure some light just got in when I unlatched the back.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2011 02:17
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:Nope, that's definitely a mistake in development. Light leaks, even large ones, have a very defined shape and would show up as a black area, but would look similar to the rest of the roll. Film sticking to itself causes blotchy discolored areas, which is what you have. I guess I'll need to be more careful spooling the film on the reel. It seems a lot easier to get 120 film on the reel than 35mm.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2011 03:21
|
|
|
nielsm posted:If you want to at least store the film and use the images that did come out, load it onto the developing reel again (no need to be in darkness this time, use it as an exercise to get it right!) and then fix it again, of course followed by wash. I just burned through this roll so I could try developing (didn't want to screw it up on shots I actually care about), but what would happen if I stored it without doing the fixer again on the bad spots? When I was spooling it I did go back and redo some parts when I was spooling because I felt it go on wrong, but obviously missed some, is this just something I'll get the feel for after a few times? So after scanning there is a bunch of "stuff" on the pictures? Are they water stains (I did use a wetting agent), dust, or something else I messed up? I found the camera (Nikon F3) at my mothers house and it was my father's. It's about 30 years old and it has been at least 15 years since it's been used so the lens could be pretty dusty, but doesn't look bad on a visual inspection, so I assume it's the negatives.  
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2011 06:26
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:There's both dust and spots and it just got scratched. Did you use gloves when loading? I'm supposed to wear gloves?  Just latex gloves?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2011 17:43
|
|
|
How do you guys maintain temperature for C-41 or E-6 developing? Lot's of things I find say to use an aquarium heater, but I can't find one that goes hotter than 98F? All I can find is this Nova company that makes two submersible heaters that go to 45C (so plenty hot), but they're in the UK and last I checked they use different plugs than the US so I'd then have to buy an adapter. All I can find at B&H for heaters look like they attach to my faucet?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2011 20:08
|
|
|
So I have two different rolls of color film (Portra 400 and Ektar 100), is it ok to develop them together or should i do them separately? I know B&W films have different times for developing, but C-41 seems a lot more rigid with the development process.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2011 00:51
|
|
|
So I've been developing with DD-X, but I'm almost out and would like to try other developers. Can I use the stop bath (ilfostop) I already have or do I need to match developer and stop bath manufacturers? Also, I know developer will go bad after a few months. Are stop bath and fixer subject to the same issue or are they good for a long time? Does fixer matter as much as developer or is it cool to just use whatever?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 03:11
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Stop bath is a matter of preference and doesn't need to be matched up to developer (with no exceptions that I know of). Hell, you can use diluted vinegar for a stop bath if you want, or even just water. Though I assume that none of the simpler solutions are as effective at halting development immediately. Cool, thanks. I've tried C-41 a couple times now and gotten pretty mixed results, so I decided to take a roll to a local lab and compare their results to mine ($4.04 for a roll of 120 seems pretty good). Anyway, I've been using a Yashica D which only has shutter speeds and aperture in full stop increments. When my light meter (iphone app, so who knows how accurate) tells me to use a shutter speed between two stops I just went with the faster one. I knew I'd get shots a bit underexposed, but it looks far worse than the <1 stop off it should be. I can fix it in photoshop and it ends up ok (except for some added noise). Anyway below is a straight from the scanner and after edits samples.   Should I be opting to overexpose a bit instead? I was using Portra 400 and metering for iso 400 if that matters. Also, I bought the camera off ebay so the shutter may not even be firing for the proper times. Typing this I think there might just be too many variables. Maybe I'll do a roll through a camera I'm sure has an accurate shutter and see how it goes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 06:33
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:I would err toward overexposure on C-41, but <1 stop underexposure shouldn't be bad. Are you scanning those yourself? The before image looks a lot like mine do if I don't lock exposure/film base color in Vuescan. Yes, I scanned them myself. I didn't really change much other than the crop in vuescan.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 15:16
|
|
|
EpsonScan doesn't work on OS X 10.7 with the v600 so I'm hosed into using Vuescan. Guess I'll be buying a Canon next time I want a scanner.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Really? I've been using the v500 with Lion and it hasn't skipped a beat, weird. I can't even download it from their website, just says install drives from the Apple update, but no Epsonscan software.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
dunkman posted:My grandfather gave me a Canonet for Christmas. It was his, and I have no idea when it's from. Canonets are range finders, so if you've not used one before it would be fun to run a few rolls through it. Which Canonet do you have? The QL 17 is highly regarded, but I've not used one.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
HPL posted:One time I shot a roll and realized at the end that I had the meter set one stop slow. I loaded another roll, set it to the proper setting and continued shooting. I re-shot some things I had just shot at the end of the last roll. Once I got the film developed and scanned, I honestly couldn't tell which was which. Not a particularly great photo, but I underexposed this by 4 stops and developed normally and still got detail, took some work on the computer though. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
beeker posted:Stock up on your HC-110, everyone! So when Kodak is finally dead only 400H will exist for C-41 color in 120?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
I usually try to buy at the local store here, they carry most of the "professional" films from Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji. Otherwise I'll order from B&H. The price is a little better online, but I like to support local business where I can.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
So when I read that Xtol "speeds up" the film by 1/3 a stop should I be metering for ISO 320 with, for example, HP5? I'm not really sure what this means.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Lower ISOs are slower films, so for HP5+ you would meter at like ISO 500 or something. But that's pretty much within the margin of error anyway, so you could just use it at 400 like normal. I'll just keep doing everything normally then, thanks.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
I've seen very little online comparing different types of film and I was bored tonight so I decided to do that. I just set up my tripod and changed film backs to take the same shot with both. I tested Tri X and HP5 because I had a roll of each and their pretty similar films. Some notes:
   The Tri X seems to be a rougher on the shadows, which is cool if that's the look you're going for, but if you're scanning negatives and plan to do some digital adjustments you could probably accomplish the same thing with HP5. EDIT: Also, I just took pictures of random poo poo around my house so none of these photos are meant to be works of art. I didn't really look for or try to create difficult lighting conditions to see how they handled really bright highlights or anything like that, perhaps I should have. eggsovereasy fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Jan 25, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
What do I gain or lose by diluting my developer (I've been using Xtol) more or less? I've been doing everything 1+1 but I've seen people say they use the stock solution, 1+2, or even 1+3.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Man, I forgot how expensive c-41 processing is. 13 rolls of 120, one roll of 220, and 10 sheets of 4x5 (all with contact sheets) came to $200. Local place here does it $4.04 a roll (35mm or 120) which doesn't seem too bad. Never had 220 or sheet film done so don't know what they charge or if they do it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2012 23:48
|
|
|
Just got this in the mail today Haven't gotten a chance to go out and shoot with it yet, but it seems pretty awesome. Even came with a battery in it, though it's alkaline and I've read the meter will be off as the battery drains so I should probably pick up a silver one.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2012 06:06
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:What kind of battery is it? Zinc might be better. A544, which I believe is the same as 4SR44, not sure about zinc. alkanphel posted:Good lens on that Yashica but I really didn't like the rangefinder patch in the viewfinder. I've not used a Leica or anything really nice like that, but the patch is way better than that in the Olympus XA or Yashica Electro 35 GSN that I have used. However, the viewfinder is a bit smaller than the GSN's and you can see the lens barrel in the viewfinder, which is a little weird.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2012 15:33
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:I know this is a couple pages back but thanks for doing this. I have always felt like Tri-X was too hard. I have always liked T-Max but have heard from others here and elsewhere that it's not really a desirable film. So maybe my tastes are off. I definitely like the look of HP5 better than the Tri-X. I have shot with HP5 but still felt it was a bit harsh. I also have a whole bunch of Tri-X in 35mm which I bought up one day not knowing how much I was going to dislike the contrast. Now I guess I should just use it up. Anyway, thanks for posting this, it was an interesting comparison. I agree, I tried so hard to like Tri-X since that seems to be everyone's favorite and Kodak is American and all  In the end I prefer HP5, but it can come out very contrasty too (like my recent post of assembly lines to SAD).I haven't tried T-Max, but I have used Delta 400 which seems similar. I think i've only seen you post color stuff, but if you try some B&W give it or Neopan, as alkanphel suggested, a try.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
HPL posted:Have you tried messing around with your agitation method? Agitating too hard will overdo the highlights. I haven't really fiddled with it, I do four inversions over 10 seconds to start and once every minute after that. Doesn't seem that would be too much?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
I meant I repeat the 4 inversions over 10 seconds every minute! Think 1 inversion every minute may be better? I'll give it a go next time I shoot some film.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
Last time I went out there was a lot of cloud cover and very even lighting, so pretty low contrast. In a situation like this I would have benefited from increased agitation during development right? To bring out some more contrast.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Yeah that's a lot. Ilford says 4 times over 10 seconds every minute, Kodak says 5-7 inversion over 5 seconds every 30 seconds. I've been using HP5 so I just went with Ilford's method. I don't really know what I'm doing though. I just don't know what changing different variables tends to do. Less agitation brings in the highlights and more develops them more. Developing shorter will leave your shadows black and longer will bring out detail? So shortening dev time while adding more agitation should make it very contrasty? Reversing should do the opposite? What difference does temperature make?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
NihilismNow posted:What is Vision 500t i've never heard of that film or seen it for sale anywhere? It's movie film.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:What the hell is "normal speed"? No, Kodak doesn't make a 100/125 speed cube-grain B+W film anymore. Ilford makes FP4+, use that instead if you're so against T-grain. I still see Plus X in 135, or is this just old stock?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:I think I really want to get some prints made, but to get this image, I had to touch it up quite a bit in processing as it's slightly overexposed when it's straight out of the camera. If I take this to a photo lab and request a print big enough for framing, will they do all the corrections to get the best image possible? I've been thinking about just going to Walgreens but I think it would be worth the five minutes extra drive to go to a photo lab for my prints. I'm even thinking about going to a photo lab to get my film developed and scanned because I am sick and tired of receiving JPEG images in the CD instead of TIFF. Why not give them your altered digital file? Don't they just scan your negative and print from that anyway?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
I've been alternating shooting between a Nikon F3 and Yashica Electro CC. I like focusing with the rangefinder more than a split prism and like the quietness of it, but like the flexibility of the F3 more (the Yashica is aperture priority only and has a fixed lens). So I started looking at interchangeable lens rangefinders, I mostly use aperture priority, but would also like to be able to do manual exposures as I do that fairly often with the F3. Anyway, the only Leica M with aperture priority is the M7 which is too expensive. Evidently the CLE has it. Does anyone have experience with the CLE or Voigtlander Bessa R2A? As I understand it Minolta actually made the CLE I would expect significantly lower quality than with an M Leica. From what I've read on the Voigtlander it's well built, but has some plastic on the inside and won't have the longevity of a Leica. Either one gets me into an M mount system that has tons of great glass and the possibility of easily moving to an M7 later should my budget allow. Basically it's hard to separate fact from Leica-worship drivel sometimes. I fully understand a Bessa won't be as good as a Leica, but is it something most people are happy with or is it just crap? Also, any other suggestions on cameras I've not considered? Also is the Voigtlander 35mm f/1.4 Nokton lens good or should I just save some more and get a Summicron 35mm f/2?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Everything I had read said Xtol and ID-11/D76 yielded the same results except Xtol gives finer grain. Well, I ran out of Xtol and they didn't have any at the local store so I bought a 1 liter package of ID-11 to use this weekend and try out as I've never used it and I'm getting much better results with it. Two rolls taken with different cameras and each spread out over a couple days so it wasn't just good light or whatever. Regardless, ID-11  Paul MaudDib posted:I don't own a Leica, but I've gone from a Yashicamat to a Rolleiflex. If it's anything like that, the build quality is much, much more solid. The Yashica is a very functional usable camera, the Rolleiflex is a work of art that you can put film through. The Leica will probably have a nicer rangefinder. However, since it's interchangeable-lens, the lens is really what matters. Yeah my concern is just that I'll hate it and just wish I'd just saved up more. On the other hand I have a hard to justifying Leica money for what is just my hobby and honestly I'm not that great at it. I'd feel like an imposter. I figure a Voigtlander is a good mid ground to get my feet wet with a more serious rangefinder than a Yashica, but not breaking the break. As long as it's not a piece of poo poo I think I'd be happy with it though. I was always happy with my midrange DSLR and never felt like I wanted a pro body (not that I'd pass on a free one). eggsovereasy fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Feb 26, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Cross post with SAD, but I'm loving the hell out of the new Portra 160, these are all off the same roll that was developed in a Rollei Digibase kit at room temp, shot with a Fuji GW690ii. A room temperture C-41 kit? That's awesome. I really like the airplane shot, your second one isn't showing up for me though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
I looked at your photostream, is this: C-41 developing 2 by Execudork, on Flickr A hot plate sort of thing? If so how much does it cost and where can I buy one? Good write up by the way. I tried C-41 once and made a huge mess because evidently you have to burp the tank during the blix as it releases gas and either the instructions didn't mention that or I missed it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2012 05:12
|
|
|
Interesting, there are some on ebay for $120, but maybe they're just lovely.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2012 05:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:02 |
|
|
Rumors abound that Kodak is discontinuing their slide film. But they said Kodak removed slide film from their website and I still see it there so who knows.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2012 20:53
|
|